If I go to the typical person on the street, and tell them your axiom, they are going to give a response similar to my first one. Then I'm going to have to give them the explanatory paragraph you just wrote so that they understand. Your simple axiom just expanded by 15 sentences.

Your 20 words or less has been oversold. Start trying to convert people, and you'll see that it's not quite that easy. It is my preferred starting point though. I like to slowly....very slowly...DERIVE the NAP from the principle of self-ownership. By slowly, I mean I stop at each point and ask if the person agrees. From there I have different methods for different people, depending on their views. I am very interested in what methods work for conversion. If anyone else has any experience in that area they'd like to share, please do, and I'll consider incorporating it into my "system."

Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."-MAM

Here's one I like to use, it gets most of the religious dupes to thinking for themselves,... and that is a step in the right direction.

Have you been to church?Did the church you went to send men with guns to round you up?So, you went of your own free will?When you got to church did thugs shake you down for money?So, you were free to give or not give as you determined best for you?So, if god gets your time or your money it is a voluntary contribution on your part?God doesn't hire thugs to make you sing in the choir?

So, if somebody is taking your time and money by force, and we've shown god doesn't do that, they must work for satan.

Satan forces people to do things they don't want to do.

So, cops ARE satan.

My axiom is too simple for most people, they can't bring themselves to think that it is that easy, but if world peace were to break out by accident, they would follow this one rule, they would have to or world peace couldn't exist.

Most people suffer from NIH syndrome, Not Invented Here.

So, I don't get discouraged, I know sound logic when I see it.

Despicable has used the most common retort I've come across. I get it every time I post on a new board.

And, he is right.

It is wrong to control people by force, even when they are forcing you to do things you don't want to do, but I'd rather face what comes next knowing that I wasn't anybody's bitch/slave on the way out. It is better to avoid the situation all together, to arrange your life in such a manner that situations such as these don't occur. But, the people that use force to control others count on the controlled lining up to drink the koolaid. If they actually had to face an opponent that resisted they would soon exhaust their resources.

My axiom is sound, just because others can't understand it's simplicity on the first hearing doesn't negate it's logic.

Thank you for recognizing, unless you can show a prior example, I will take credit.

I thought it up in Sep. 2000, and have had it on the web since 2004.

Perhaps you have an earlier example you can point towards, I'm sure that I can't be the only one that has thought of it in history, but I'm not all that well read.

I will give credit to Bakunin, Hubbard, Rand, and a host of scifi writers of the 80's for putting me on the track of it, but I am not aware of a philosopher that comes even close to world peace in 20 words or less.